<p>rofl.....haverford...</p>
<p>rofl at the 16 yr olds who think they know the quality of education/opportunities for every school.</p>
<p>swarth is overrated. Upenn and CMU are definitely the top 2. They are varied in their fields with great engineering/science/business/fine arts/etc.</p>
<p>Hey, johnwesley and sternman - what's with the Tufts bashing? Two more "I can't believe Tufts is elite!" kids? I get so tired of these arguments. Look at the facts. Tufts is a top school, and both of you know it. I don't know who told you otherwise.</p>
<p>I'm confused...
Which are we again?
Do we "both know it" or are we " can't believe its"?</p>
<p>Canada..:)
1.Mcgill
2.Toronto
3.UBC
4.Waterloo
5.Queen's
6.Alberta
...</p>
<p>PA:
1.Swarthmore
2. UPenn
3. Haverford
4. CMU
5. Bryn Mawr</p>
<p>Swarthmore is definitely NOT overrated. It's even better than UPenn academicwise.</p>
<p>Jpod, Sterman87, semiserious:</p>
<p>Your rankings are laughable. There is no way that Pittsburgh or Penn State should be rated over Bryn Mawr. Bryn Mawr's SAT percentile 25-75 is 1220-1410. 66% of freshmen graduate in the top ten percent in their class and their peer assessment is 4.1. Pitt's numbers are 1140-1330;46%; and 3.4. Penn State's numbers are 1090-1290; 41%; and 3.8. The Pennsylvania rankings should be:</p>
<ol>
<li>Upenn-Swarthmore (Tied)</li>
<li>Haverford</li>
<li>Carnegie Mellon</li>
<li>Bryn Mawr</li>
<li>Lehigh</li>
</ol>
<p>Lafayette, Bucknell, and probably Villanova also rank ahead of Penn St./Pitt.</p>
<p>It's a shame how Bryn Mawr gets overlooked so frequently. Good school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Jpod, Sterman87, semiserious:</p>
<p>Your rankings are laughable. There is no way that Pittsburgh or Penn State should be rated over Bryn Mawr. Bryn Mawr's SAT percentile 25-75 is 1220-1410. 66% of freshmen graduate in the top ten percent in their class and their peer assessment is 4.1. Pitt's numbers are 1140-1330;46%; and 3.4. Penn State's numbers are 1090-1290; 41%; and 3.8. The Pennsylvania rankings should be:</p>
<ol>
<li>Upenn-Swarthmore (Tied)</li>
<li>Haverford</li>
<li>Carnegie Mellon</li>
<li>Bryn Mawr</li>
<li>Lehigh</li>
</ol>
<p>Lafayette, Bucknell, and probably Villanova also rank ahead of Penn St./Pitt.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, I never made a list... My point was that Lafayette, Bucknell, Nova, etc. should be ahead of PSU/UPitt/the other schools sternman named.</p>
<p>I would agree with mendota, although would probably put Bucknell in front of Lehigh.</p>
<p>Ptribecca : Swart is overrated and should never be above Upenn.</p>
<p>because you know so much about Swarthmore while attending Stern</p>
<p>Because you know so much without even attending college yet. </p>
<p>Doesn't matter since we shouldn't compare LACs to Nationals. I mean for business people'd pick Upenn/CMU over all those in PA. For CS/engineering/artsdramatheatre and stuff people'll pick CMU over all those schools in PA too.</p>
<p>LACs and Nationals are very different from each other.</p>
<p>I agree with you sternman for once. LACs cannot be ranked with Nationals. Thats why USnews has seperate rankings for them.</p>
<p>LACs and NUs can and should be compared and is one of the many things wrong with USNWR. Dartmouth and Williams have a lot more in common than Dartmouth and MIT.</p>
<p>Swarthmore is definitely not overrated, if anything it's underrated because it's so small that many people haven't heard of it. My mom taught there for eight years, so I certainly saw many students and faculty firsthand over a long time period. The academic quality of the student body is better than Penn, but this comes with the problem that it is more intense and less fun than Penn.</p>
<p>i agree with gellino. there are many more examples than dartmouth (although that is a good one). what about wake forest? wake suddenly appeared on the national u rankings list in a very high spot a few years ago when it had previously been on the "master's regional" list at number one. what made it jump suddenly? schools like wake, dartmouth, and W&M could easily be placed on another list, while some LACs like W&L (sorry, hate to bring it up again) could be on the NU list. W&L is classified as a LAC yet has accredited undergraduate journalism and business programs, as well as a highly ranked law school. most true LACs have none of that (williams, amherst, swat) and should remain on the LAC list. in any event, my point is that it IS indeed fair to compare LACs to NUs in some cases. wake forest could be placed on the same ranking list as davidson for NC, and W&L on the same list as W&M for VA.</p>
<p>Swart. is def. underrated. Even here in my area of PA, most people havent heard of it. Hell, I didnt know how good it was until last year.</p>
<p>if talking about top 10 schools in terms of overall quality of education (including factors such as available oppoortunities and success for alumni), for the purpose of this list, it makes sense to have LACs and UNIs together. USnews includes other factors that make it impossible to accurately list them together (although USNews isnt completely accurate now, but thats an entirely different thread...)</p>
<p>in the end there is but ONE reason why lacs and national universities cannot be ranked together: peer assessment scores. if dartmouth gets crushed in the national rankings for its lack of graduate programs, what happens when amhest is included in the same survey? if lehigh only gets a 3.2, what happens to bucknell?</p>
<p>the ONLY other factor that makes the the two groups difficult to compare is the 'financial resources' statistic, which could easily be modified to account for the inflated numbers at heavily graduate-oriented schools as well as small lacs.</p>